Colonialism is generally defined as the control and exploitation of a people or region by a more dominant power whereas imperialism is defined as the international interest and influence on both colonies and other existing powers through means of military use by a more dominant power. However, these terms have had distinct meaning and application at different points of time. During ancient times, colonialism featured direct rule and mutual acculturation between ruler and colony. Ancient imperialism reigned predominantly through excess military use. In contrast, during modern times, colonialism exemplified the same dominance but through indirect rule and the assertion of European supremacy. Modern imperialist nations now enforced and secured international interest and influence through whatever means necessary (Osterhammel 21).

Osterhammel presents that colonialism was “not just any relationship between masters and servants, but one in which an entire society is robbed of its historical line of development, externally manipulated and transformed according to the needs and interests of the colonial rulers,” (Osterhammel 15). Early on, these pre-modern needs and interests established premise for direct rule and settlement. Settlers typically sought religious or political persecution of some sort. Osterhammel notes that “characteristic of pre-modern empires was the annexation of newly-won regions to the existing territorial government of the empire as provinces,” (Osterhammel 9). Modern colonialism, as with British India and the Congo under King Leopold II, did not feature such incorporation of government and direct settlement. Yet the relationship between ruler and ruled was made clear, this was “colonial rule without colonization,” (Osterhammel 8). As the British expanded operations in India from Calcutta, to Bombay and Madras, “the chief purpose was to secure a trade hegemony,” not settlement (Osterhammel 9). The Congo was a colony to fulfill the ambitious desires of King Leopold II. The lands of the Congo, stretching up until the Nile, were claimed by unequal treaties granting trade monopolies. Belgium would exploit heavily the resources of the land, profiting most from ivory and rubber. Additionally, in modern colony building, migrating settlers rarely compromised the majority, unlike in the past. For example, settlers of the Congo did not seek religious or political persecution. They arrived for fame and fortune. Work at home did not pay well while African colonization and exploration was glorified in the public eye. These modern colonial exploits were driven by profit and economic exploitation of labor, markets and materials, more so than worldwide expansion and settlement by man (Osterhammel 26).

Modern colonialism was marked by the “unwillingness of new rulers to make cultural concessions to subjugated societies” (Osterhammel 15). This was not the case with ancient colonization. Colonial powers and dominated civilizations mutually assimilated contrasting cultures and ideas. Perhaps they fared better than their modern colonial counterparts. Nonetheless, modern colonialism expected “extensive acculturation of the values and customs of Europe” (Osterhammel 15-16). European supremacists cherished this colonialist ideology and saw to it as their divine mission to impose their supremacy, often achieved by the work of missionaries. To further impose supremacy, Europeans used fear tactics, slaughter, cruel punishments, manipulation and trickery. For example, Africans were duped into believing that their white European counterparts were god-like with supernatural abilities. They boasted supernatural strength, increased mortality and a higher intelligence. For example, an African was once handed an unloaded gun and asked to pull the trigger at a European. The European would stand unfazed and then later pretend that he retrieved the bullet from off the floor. Such supremacist attitudes had long existed with ancient colonial powers previously, but never were these attitudes aggressively imposed on subjugated societies (Osterhammel 16).

Modern imperialism can be marked by a transformation of both colonial means and motives, due to the advancements in technology as noted by D. Headrick in his “Tools of Imperialism: Strengths and Weaknesses.” Headrick challenges the notion that imperial powers always possessed adequate means and that over time only motives changed. He argues that technological innovation changed both means and motives to allow for a wave of imperialism. His most compelling evidence is the revolution of guns. Initially, guns were inaccurate in trajectory and flawed in design. Wielders were advised not to shoot enemies until they could see them in plain sight. Reloading muzzle loaders was time consuming and bullets never reached their maximum distance capabilities. These older guns had foul odors, leaked and let out smoke, often eliminating stealth tactics. The introduction of new guns greatly improved these flaws and gave Europeans a “crushing superiority” over their enemies despite their “advantage in numbers and knowledge of the land,” (Headrick 248). The weaponry of natives was unmatched. Their bows, swords and older guns could not compete. Large populations were effectively eliminated with the introduction of multi shot rifles and machine guns. Modern guns were important in suppressing and maintaining colonial rule. Similarly, steamboats allowed for speedier transportation, further connecting the colonizer and colony while the invention of quinine prophylaxis combatted malaria thus allowing for successful expeditions of Africa. The transformation of motives and means is seen with Belgium. For instance, Belgium a small country lacked motive in colony building for the longest time. Other superpowers deemed Belgium incapable as an imperial power. However, with the advancements of technology, the colonizing of Congo was made was made a top priority that was soon accomplished. Indeed, advancements in technology bolstered motives and made more effective the means of colonial rule.

Over time, imperialism evolved, in part due to the realization that the same results could be achieved in a great number of ways, not just through military force (Osterhammel 21). Rather, modern imperialism was justified and carried out by whatever means possible.  These means included the “consolidation of world economic relations, the improvement of internationally available means of military intervention and the rise of political thinking on a global strategic scale,” (Osterhammel 18-19). These tactics were best employed by King Leopold II. To garner support and funding for the colonization of the Congo, King Leopold II exploited mainstream media and public image. The King hired world renowned explorers and edited their articles to simultaneously glorify exploration and European supremacy over Africans while playing on public fears of the evils of lesser races such as the Arabs. In addition, King Leopold led a façade masking corruption, insisting that African expeditions were for the sole purposes of philanthropy and the betterment of society. Behind the scenes, King Leopold manipulated political ties and economic promises at home and in both The United States and Europe to yield recognition of the Congo as a Belgian colony. In this manner, modern imperialists were able to protect and secure their economic interests and political influences worldwide, on a long term basis.

“Imperialism is the concept that compromises all forces and activities to the construction and maintenance of transcolonial empires,” (Osterhammel 21). “An imperial center [defines] as imperial its own national interests and enforces them worldwide,” not just to colonies alone. (Osterhammel 21). It is important to note that these economic and political objectives must be fulfilled for a colonial power to be considered an imperial power. Few have actually done so in modern times. For example, Holland, a great colonial power, was never an imperial power as it lacked “both international political ambitions and military might, and also lacking the economic option of being “informal” to any significant degree beyond its own colony Indonesia,” (Osterhammel 22). Limitations to colonial rule such as competition amongst powers, dying economic markets, revolts by indigenous populations, and an increasing emancipation movement also prevented great colonial powers from becoming imperial powers. Ultimately, Osterhammel asserts that colonialism is not imperialism and that the latter is an extreme case of the prior.

Keywords:

Colonialism: The territorial acquisition and economic exploitation by a more dominant power that rules in the interests of its self.

Imperialism: The international interest and influence on both colonies and non-colonial states through means of military use, economics or politics by a more dominant power.

Colony: A seized region whose resources and natives are ruled and economically exploited by an alien ruler.

Empire: A collective group of weaker territories and colonies ruled by one supreme state.

Colonialist Ideology: The idea of European superiority and the divine mission to westernize the lesser people of seized territories.

Questions for Further Inquiry:

1. How might have attitudes of European superiority first originated?
2. Who are the modern imperial powers of today? Of tomorrow?

About the Image

In this image we see three men representing Britain, Germany and Russia as they appear to be holding grab bags as they claim territory off the globe. The grab bag for Britain appears full in comparison to the other two. I find this image amusing in that Germany and Russia are scrapping for whatever territories remain in a sort of free for all style of competition while Britain is just standing there watching.

http://www.bscsd.org/webpages/mcohen/global.cfm?subpage=17999